2017 Canadian Championship

[Jonathan Berry]

Controversy

I used to be a daily visitor, but now often months go by ... I happened to pop in a couple of days ago and voilà a juicy and important dispute.

Concerning the controversy proper, there's not much to add to comments already made. Of course I agree with some more than with others!

I did look at the video uploaded by Nikolay: http://youtu.be/qBNEcRgHkvE

Here is the game score I made from it:

[Event "Canadian Championship "]
[Site "Montreal"]
[Date "2017.??.??"]
[Round "blitz"]
[White "Sambuev"]
[Black "Noritsyn"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D36"]
[TimeControl "5 + 3"]

1. Nf3 d5 2. d4 c6 3. c4 e6 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. Bg5 Nbd7 6. cxd5 exd5 7. e3 Be7 8. Bd3
O-O 9. O-O Re8 10. Qc2 a5 11. Ne5 Nf8 12. f4 N6d7 13. Bxe7 Qxe7 14. Rf3 f6 15.
Nxd7 Bxd7 16. h3 g6 17. g4 Qd6 18. Qf2 Ne6 19. Kh1 c5 20. Rg1 cxd4 21. exd4 Nf8
22. h4 Re7 23. f5 g5 24. hxg5 fxg5 25. f6 Rf7 26. Qe3 Ne6 27. Qe5 Qxe5 28. dxe5
Bc6 29. Kh2 Re8 30. Rf5 h6 31. Ne2 Nc5 32. Nd4 Bd7 33. Bb5 Bxb5 34. Nxb5 Nd3
35. Nd6 Rxe5 36. Nxf7 Kxf7 37. Rd1 Rxf5 38. gxf5 Nf4 39. Rc1 Kxf6 40. Rc7 d4
41. Rxb7 d3 42. Rd7 Kxf5 43. Kg3 Ke4 44. Kf2 h5 45. a4 h4 46. b4 axb4 47. a5 h3
48. a6 h2 49. Rh7 d2 50. a7 d1=R 51. a8=Q+ Nd5 52. Rxh2 Rd2+ 53. Kg3 Rd3+ 54.
Kg4 Kd4 55. Qa7+ Kc4 56. Qa6+ Kd4 57. Qa1+ Nc3 58. Rh8 Kc4 59. Qb2 Rd4+ 60.
Kxg5 Rd5+ 61. Kg6 Rd6+ 62. Kf7 Rd7+ 63. Ke6 Rc7 64. Rh4+ 1-0

Here is a notation (each line contains only 3 or 4 items for readability, and because Bad Things can happen with long line lengths) I invented to track the pieces in Bator's left hand:
6-13b15b21b
24bp25*p,-28q
34q36q38qr41qrp
50*-52-60-

The numbers are move numbers where a capture was made. * indicates a change in holdings not related to a capture. "-" means no pieces in the hand. So on move 6, Bator made a capture and left it by the side of the table. On move 13, Bator captured a bishop and kept it in his left hand, under the table. On move 15, he captured another piece, but did not add it to his holding. On move 25, with no captures in process, he unhanded the bishop, then the pawn so nothing remained in hand. On move 28 he recaptured and held the queen, adding to his stash on moves 38 and 41. On move 50 after Nikolay promoted to an upside-down rook, he released the three pieces (pawn, rook, queen) by the side of the board with his left hand, while using the right hand to pick up a white queen from the side of the board where the captured pieces stood. Before he could complete the promotion, the arbiter had stopped play. I have a 1 MB snapshot of this moment from the video at 14:20, but the interface said it was forty-something megabytes too big to upload. I didn't try to force it. Bad Things can happen if one tries to do too much.

In my experience as a Master player and as an (Int'l) arbiter, players do not like to stop the clock. When you stop the clock, random things can happen (a tiny subset of which have been mentioned in the comments here), and random things can be Bad Things.

Good Things can hardly ever happen if you allow your time to get low. If Nikolay had 40 seconds rather than 4 seconds, he could have said: "Hey, where's my queen?" (on his own time). Granted, there's probably an arbiter on this wide earth who would have forfeited him for that, but one hopes it is a decision that would be reversed on appeal. Ideally the arbiter too would have noticed that the black queen was missing, stopped the clock, discovered the queen, awarded Nikolay an extra minute for his troubles, and the game would have continued.

Perhaps somebody in the distant past, before the days of video replay (I guess in Canada that would be pre-1988, World Chess Festival in Saint John, NB), determined that Bad Things can never happen if a player holds on to captured pieces. It could be that this somebody trained his or her students to do just that.

Irony warning. Some have suggested that holding the extra queen is conduct unbefitting ... So, an arbiter, being prepared for eventualities, has a pair of queens in his pocket but in the heat of the moment overlooks the local situation and omits to bring out a black queen at the right time. He leaves the pieces hidden in his pocket. He might otherwise be a good arbiter, but if you determine that he should "lose the game" for his oversight, how do you incorporate his previous excellent work? End irony.

[Jonathan Berry]

Re: Controversy

Philosophically, however, there is a lot to be said about why these disputes happen so often. I've found that usually nobody wants to hear it.

[Eric Gedajlovic]

Re: Controversy

Why do they happen?

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: Controversy

Also, I don't know if it's been mentioned yet in the thread, but since we're talking promotions...

What is the EXACT procedure for promotion when the piece is not readily available?

-Do you stop the clock BEFORE making your move and call for the arbiter?
-Or do you put the pawn on the 8th rank, say the piece you promote out loud and THEN stop the clock?
-Can there be a penalty if you don't do things exactly in the right order?

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Controversy

Also, I don't know if it's been mentioned yet in the thread, but since we're talking promotions...

What is the EXACT procedure for promotion when the piece is not readily available?

-Do you stop the clock BEFORE making your move and call for the arbiter?
-Or do you put the pawn on the 8th rank, say the piece you promote out loud and THEN stop the clock?
-Can there be a penalty if you don't do things exactly in the right order?

Simple question, which apparently has a simple answer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promotion_(chess)

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: Controversy

Simple question, which apparently has a simple answer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promotion_(chess)

Doesn't answer my question of when EXACTLY a player should stop the clock and call the arbiter. Before making the move, or after? I tend to think 'after'.

Or maybe the question is not actually covered in the rules and both ways are OK?

[Gordon Ritchie]

Re: Controversy

Thanks, Kevin. I was unaware of the Karpov-Kasparov incident at Linares. Also, Steinitz's defence of promoting to a pawn!?

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Controversy

By implication of the description of the Karpov-Kasparov incident, it would seem the pawn first needs to be put on the eighth rank, and then the clocks are stopped by the player promoting, to summon the arbiter for an unavailable piece to be found for the promotion square. But, that's just my interpretation...

Btw, in Australian rules Bughouse, I seem to recall, a pawn must remain on the eighth rank as a pawn. The idea is to avoid having to fetch new pieces from other set(s).

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: Controversy

By implication of the description of the Karpov-Kasparov incident, it would seem the pawn first needs to be put on the eighth rank, and then the clocks are stopped by the player promoting, to summon the arbiter for an unavailable piece to be found for the promotion square. But, that's just my interpretation...

Btw, in Australian rules Bughouse, I seem to recall, a pawn must remain on the eighth rank as a pawn. The idea is to avoid having to fetch new pieces from other set(s).

That would be my understanding as well.

But I'd be curious to know if it's OK to stop the clock BEFORE pushing your pawn. This would have the advantage of not having the clock stopped WHILE a move is being completed. Because if you push your pawn and stop the clock, I could very well see a hasty opponent play his move and start the clock again. Especially when both players are in time trouble.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Controversy

That would be my understanding as well.

But I'd be curious to know if it's OK to stop the clock BEFORE pushing your pawn. This would have the advantage of not having the clock stopped WHILE a move is being completed. Because if you push your pawn and stop the clock, I could very well see a hasty opponent play his move and start the clock again. Especially when both players are in time trouble.

I'd think in case of a hasty opponent pressing the clock (& moving), the arbiter would rule he had no right to do so while a pawn was on his first rank, still not finished promoting, and that player could possibly be penalized somehow (again, my interpretation).

There's nothing about the description of the Karpov-Kasparov incident that suggests to me it's okay to stop the clocks before pushing a pawn to the eighth rank. A danger then might be that that player might next decide not to promote after all (though I suppose he might be somehow penalized for stopping the clocks for no reason).

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: Controversy

You're probably right.

I've looked briefly into the FIDE rulebook and this question doesn't seem to be covered in clear wording. It only says a promotion is completed when the piece is put on the board AND it also says that a player can stop the clock to request the assistance of the arbiter if a piece is not available. But the exact dynamic between the two is fuzzy.

Some will tend to blame the players for not knowing the rules. But in many cases, the rules are actually written so that interpretation is very likely to happen at some point.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Controversy

Two questions:

1) If a player stops the clock, asks the arbiter for a Q, but does so before pushing the pawn to the 8th rank, is he then obligated to promote it on that move?

2) If a player pushes a pawn to the 8th rank, then stops the clock and asks for a Q, is he then obligated to promote it to a Q or can he stop the clock again and ask for a N, for example?

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: Controversy

Two questions:

1) If a player stops the clock, asks the arbiter for a Q, but does so before pushing the pawn to the 8th rank, is he then obligated to promote it on that move?

2) If a player pushes a pawn to the 8th rank, then stops the clock and asks for a Q, is he then obligated to promote it to a Q or can he stop the clock again and ask for a N, for example?

These two exact questions were on my mind too.

A clear rule would be that a player can push the pawn, verbally say what the promotion is and only then stop the clock to look for the missing piece. Pawn stays on the promotion square to avoid confusion. And the clock starts again when the piece is put on the board. Player can't back off from the promotion he called earlier.

Any other way means a player can technically stop the clock and use the extra time to think about his move.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Controversy

Regardless of what the rule may say about asking the arbiter for an unavailable piece, it seems it would be (at the least) nice if the arbiter didn't need to possibly ask a player's opponent to hand over a captured piece in his hand that would otherwise be available for the player/arbiter to put on the promotion square. Neil's idea of not allowing captured pieces to be handled would take care of that, though perhaps many players are currently accustomed to holding captured pieces in their hand(s) at least for some part(s) of the game.

[Louis Morin]

Re : Re: Controversy

Also, I don't know if it's been mentioned yet in the thread, but since we're talking promotions...

What is the EXACT procedure for promotion when the piece is not readily available?

1) Do you stop the clock BEFORE making your move and call for the arbiter?
2) Or do you put the pawn on the 8th rank, say the piece you promote out loud and THEN stop the clock?
3) Can there be a penalty if you don't do things exactly in the right order?

1) No, you stop the clock and call for the arbiter, without making any move. This is the proper procedure to promote a pawn with an unavailable piece or claim a draw by 3-fold repetition or the 50-move rule.
2) NEVER do that.
3) If you put the pawn on the 8th rank without replacing the pawn with a piece, say "Queen" out loud and THEN stop the clock, you only manage to play an illegal move (a7-a8=P is an illegal move). You might be allowed to get a Queen, though, if the penalty for this illegal move is not "losing the game". Alternatively, if you play your move, stop the clock and call for the arbiter to claim a draw by 3-fold repetition or the 50-move rule, this does not work because it is not your turn to move anymore. Your opponent might decide to play a move that no longer allows you to claim a draw.

So, every time you need the assistance of the arbiter for a serious reason, stop your clock and call for the arbiter. Never play any move before or while doing this. Of course, every time you stop the clock, you must have a valid reason, if not you might get a warning or penalty from the arbiter.